Recently, at a student government conference, I had to determine the role of a leader with my group members. We were given different scenarios and had to determine if the leader acted correctly in the situations. Basically it boiled down to this:

A. The leader completely goes against what he thinks is best for his country and supports the majority.

B. The leader completely goes against the majority and does what he believes is best for the country.

Most people agreed that the leader should always support the majority, but I disagreed. If the leader only supports the majority, then he is not being a leader. Isn't the leader elected to make descions for his cause? He is not elected to always agree with the majority. Or is he? I was extremely torn about this issue and I still am. I think it is an interesting question. Probably, the answer comes to a careful balance of both options. What do people think? I am missing something completely

Well, with only those two options, I would go with B.

But when given the choices of A and B, I always choose C.

So, I would say, the leader tries to go with what the people want but ultimately does what he believes is best for the country, whether or not that follows the majority.

Unless he's going to be up for reelection, that is...(just kidding)

quote:

A leader wouldn't be leading if he was FOLLOWING the majority.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

A leader wouldn't be leading if he was FOLLOWING the majority.

Just a thought.

The leader (assuming it was a democracy) was elected based on the platform he ran on, right? So technically he should go with the people that elected him, unless the majority doesn't follow the platform. However, if what has arisen coincides with what he ran on, but the majority of the country disagrees with the leader, unless its a dictatorship the majority of people have to agree with the leader in order for the leader to carry anything through.

Because the leader is supposed to do what he/she believes is best for the country, they should go against the majority, but then again the leader also must represent those that elected him.

If that makes absolutely no sense, I apologize. I can't think straight; I just finished an exam and I'm still seeing variables and numbers.

This is probably not what you're looking for but my dad always tells me this: a boss tells you what to do, a leader shows you how to do it. Probably not related, but I like it.

sounds like a great activity

quote:

what about compromise tied into that one?

That was the point of the activity. There was no "right" option. We had to take sides and argue.

quote:

B. The leader completely goes against the majority and does what he believes is best for the country

what about compromise tied into that one? I mean nothing would get done...like in the west wing...Bartlet and his problems with a republican congress.